Compare Settlement Proposal Against Temporary Orders

---
name: compare-settlement-proposal-against-temporary-orders
task_id: trusts-estates-private-client/compare-settlement-proposal-against-temporary-orders
description: Comparing a settlement proposal against temporary orders and financial records requires identifying the relevant estate, measuring each party’s proposed allocation against the applicable division benchmark, and flagging missing structural provisions that may create enforcement or implementation risk.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Compare Settlement Proposal Against Temporary Orders — Deviation Analysis Memorandum

## 1. Subject-matter triage

- Treat the task as a comparison memo from the petitioner’s perspective, not a settlement-drafting exercise.
- Identify the governing temporary orders, the settlement proposal, and the supporting financials before analyzing any deviation.
- Separate economic deviations from structural deficiencies; do not blend valuation issues, support issues, and implementation mechanics into one undifferentiated narrative.
- If more than one party, time period, asset class, or obligation is in scope, enumerate them first and analyze each separately.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Measuring a proposal against isolated line items without first establishing the relevant estate and the benchmark for comparison.
- Accepting stated valuations, discounts, or income assumptions without checking the underlying support, methodology, and consistency with the financial records.
- Missing provisions that are necessary to make the settlement operational, including transfer mechanics, indemnities, security for continuing obligations, and tax allocation.
- Failing to compare the proposal to the temporary orders term by term, which can hide increases, reductions, or silent omissions.
- Overlooking double-counting where the same economic item is used in more than one place to change a party’s net position.
- Stating a deviation as a conclusion without quantifying it, tying it to a related provision, and explaining the practical consequence for the petitioner.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Use the applicable state property-division framework as the baseline: community property, equitable distribution, or other local default rules determine the comparison point for the proposal.
- Use the governing valuation principles for family-law assets: the relevant methodology should be supported by the record and any discount or adjustment should be grounded in recognized practice.
- Use the controlling support framework for temporary and ongoing obligations: child support and spousal maintenance are measured against the statute, rule, or order that governs duration, amount, and allocation.
- Use the retirement-transfer mechanism required by the relevant account type: certain tax-qualified assets ordinarily require a separate transfer instrument or equivalent order to effect division.
- Use the ordinary rules governing secured liabilities, refinancing, and indemnity: debt allocation is not complete unless the order or agreement addresses who pays, who refinances, and who bears default risk.
- Use the applicable tax-allocation rules for pass-through or entity-level income: if income is allocated to a spouse or beneficiary, the memo should test who bears the related tax burden.
- Use the controlling authority for each proposition stated in the memo; identify the statute, rule, order, or other authority that supports the comparison.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

1. Identify the universe of relevant items: estate components, liabilities, income streams, support obligations, and implementation provisions.
2. Derive the comparison baseline from the temporary orders and supporting financials.
3. Measure each proposed allocation against that baseline and note whether the proposal maintains, improves, or worsens the petitioner’s position.
4. Quantify each deviation using the figures in the record; if more than one period or party is involved, show the comparison separately for each.
5. Test whether the proposal creates valuation risk by relying on unsupported appraisals, discounts, or assumptions.
6. Check whether any support term duplicates an expense credit or otherwise produces double-counting.
7. Review retirement, debt, and tax mechanics for missing implementation language.
8. Compare the proposal against each temporary-order term to identify silent reductions, added burdens, or unresolved obligations.
9. Close each issue by stating the scale of the deviation, the related document or provision that interacts with it, and the downstream effect on the petitioner.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

- Track vertical relationships between the temporary orders, the settlement proposal, and the supporting financial records; later documents should not be analyzed in isolation from earlier binding terms.
- Track horizontal relationships across asset classes and obligations; a change in one category may alter the net effect in another.
- Track temporal relationships for continuing obligations, refinancing deadlines, transfer timing, and any support that begins, ends, or changes at a stated date.
- When the record contains multiple valuation dates or reporting periods, analyze each one separately before drawing a net conclusion.
- If a provision depends on another provision being performed first, state the dependency and the risk of non-performance.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Use a memorandum format with a short executive summary, then issue-by-issue analysis ordered by practical importance.
- Start with a brief comparison table or equivalent summary that identifies the relevant item, the temporary-order baseline, the proposal term, and the deviation direction.
- For each issue, include:
  - a severity label using a uniform ordinal scale stated once at the top;
  - the quantified deviation from the source documents;
  - the related provision, schedule, or financial record that must be read with it;
  - the consequence to the petitioner if the proposal is adopted as written.
- Address financial deviations before structural gaps.
- Include a distinct section for missing or incomplete implementation mechanics, such as retirement transfers, secured-liability allocation, indemnification, tax treatment, and security for ongoing obligations.
- When legal propositions are stated, identify the controlling authority by name and section, rule, or order number where available.
- End with a Recommended Actions section that gives concise next steps in imperative form, identifies the responsible role, and anchors timing to the settlement process, hearing schedule, or other relevant milestone.